معیارهایی برای تعیین و ارزیابی اصطلاح‌های موضوعی مقاله‌های علمی از منظر کاربردگرایی

نیک زمان, امیر; نوکاریزی, محسن; صنعت جو, اعظم

doi:10.22034/jipm.2023.698593

معیارهایی برای تعیین و ارزیابی اصطلاح‌های موضوعی مقاله‌های علمی از منظر کاربردگرایی

نویسندگان

امیر نیک زمان

محسن نوکاریزی

اعظم صنعت جو

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد؛ مشهد؛ ایران

10.22034/jipm.2023.698593

چکیده

هدف این پژوهش شناسایی معیارهایی برای تعیین و ارزیابی اصطلاح‌های موضوعی مقاله‌های علمی از منظر کاربردگرایی است. این‌طور به نظر می‌رسد که از منظر کاربردگرایی، درستی اصطلاح‌های موضوعی مقاله‌های علمی در گرو برخورداری آن‌ها از کارکردهای بازنمایی و سودمندی به‌طور همزمان است. یکی از معیارهایی که می‌توان به‌وسیله آن کارکردهای اصطلاح‌های موضوعی اختصاص‌یافته به مقاله‌های علمی را ارزیابی کرد، زبان کاربران است. به‌منظور ارزیابی کارکردهای اصطلاح‌های موضوعی مقاله‌های علمی با استفاده از زبان کاربران لازم است نقاط مشترک زبان کاربران و مقاله‌های مربوط به نیاز اطلاعاتی آن‌ها را شناسایی کنیم. این پژوهش با روش تحلیل تجزیه‌ای انجام شده است. نقاط مشترک زبان کاربران و مقاله‌های مربوط به نیاز اطلاعاتی آن‌ها بر اساس نقش‌هایی که کاربر حین جست‌وجو و استفاده از اطلاعات ایفا می‌کند (جست‌وجوگر، استنادکننده، و برچسب‌گذار)، شناسایی شدند. این نقاط مشترک عبارت‌اند از: الف) همۀ عبارت‌های جست‌وجویی که مقاله‌ای معین می‌تواند برای آن‌ها پاسخی فراهم ‌کند، ب) اصطلاح‌های مشترک میان مقاله‌های استنادکننده و استنادشده که در منابع معناشناختی مقاله‌های استنادکننده حضور دارند، پ) اصطلاح‌های موجود در بافت‌های استناد موجود در مقاله‌های استنادکننده و متعلق به مقاله‌های استنادشده که در منابع معناشناختی مقاله‌های استنادشده حضور دارند، و ت) برچسب‌هایی که کاربران در وبگاه‌های نشانه‌گذاری اجتماعی به مقاله علمی اختصاص می‌دهند. این پژوهش به این نتیجه دست یافت که اگرچه هر یک از رد پاهای زبان‌شناختی کاربر (در مقام جست‌وجوگر، استنادکننده، و برچسب‌گذار) در مسیر دستیابی به مقاله‌های مربوط به نیاز اطلاعاتی این قابلیت را دارد که به‌ منزله نقاط دسترسی موضوعی برای آن مقاله‌ها در نظر گرفته شوند، اما از منظر استفاده از اطلاعات در مقام تولید اطلاعات با چالش‌هایی رو‌به‌رو هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

کارکردهای اصطلاح‌های موضوعی

رویکردهای نمایه‌سازی

ارزیابی نمایه‌سازی

عنوان مقاله English

Criteria for Determining and Evaluating Scientific Articles Subject Terms from Pragmatic Perspective

نویسندگان English

Amir Nikzaman

Mohsen Nowkarizi

Azam Sanatjoo

چکیده English

The research aim is identifying criteria for determining and evaluating scientific articles subject terms from pragmatic perspective. From pragmatic perspective, it seems the correctness of scientific articles subject terms depends on having functions including representationality and usefulness, simultaneously. One of the criteria for evaluating the functions of articles subject terms is users’ language. To evaluate the functions of scientific articles subject terms by users’ language we need to identify common points among users’ language and relevant articles to their information needs. This research has done by decompositional analysis. These common points were identified according to user’s roles in information searching and using (user as searcher, user as citer, user as tagger). These common points are: a) all search terms that a certain article could respond to them, b) common terms between cited and citing articles that are available in the semantic sources of citing articles, c) terms that are available in the semantic sources of article and used by citer in citation context, d) tags dedicated to scientific articles by users through social tagging websites. This research concludes although each of user’s linguistic traces (user as searcher, user as citer, user as tagger) in the route of attaining articles relevant to her/his information need having possibility to be considered as a subject access points for those articles, but from the perspective of information use as information production faces challenges.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

: Subject Term Functions

Indexing Approaches

Indexing Evaluation

تیلور، آرلین جی. 1999. سازماندهی اطلاعات. ترجمه محمدحسین دیانی. 1381. مشهد: کتابخانه رایانه‌ای.

شمس، منصور. 1397. آشنایی با معرفت‌شناسی (ویرایش 3). تهران: هرمس.

فتاحی، رحمت‌الله، و امیر نیک‌زمان. 1391. تحلیل جست‌وجوهای موضوعی کاربران در فهرست رایانه‌ای به لحاظ نوع و چگونگی همخوانی آن‌ها با فهرست سرعنوان‌های موضوعی فارسی (با استفاده از ثبت دادوگرفت). پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات 28 (1): 251-257. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-1802-fa.html (تاریخ دسترسی 15/09/1400)

فتاحی، رحمت‌الله، و شعله ارسطوپور. 1386. بررسی میزان همخوانی سرعنوان‌های موضوعی فارسی با کلیدواژه‌های عنوان و فهرست مندرجات کتاب‌های فارسی در حوزه‌های علوم انسانی، علوم اجتماعی، علوم کاربردی و علوم محض. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 10 (3): 57-80. http://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_43888.html (تاریخ دسترسی 15/09/1400)

لنکستر، فردریک. 1998. نمایه‌سازی و چکیده‌نویسی: مبانی نظری و عملی. ترجمه عباس گیلوری. 1382. تهران: چاپار.

محمدزاده، رضا. 1383. تحلیل فلسفی. پژوهشنامه فلسفه دین (نامه حکمت). 2 (4): 67-99. https://www.sid.ir/paper/125826/fa

نوروزی، علیرضا. 1400. برچسب و برچسب‌گذاری. در دایره‌المعارف کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی. http://portal.nlai.ir/daka/Wiki%20Pages/%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%86%D8%B3%D8%A8%20%D9%88%20%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%86%D8%B3%D8%A8%20%DA%AF%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%20%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C.aspx (تاریخ دسترسی 20/6/1400)

هاسپرس، جان. 1967. درآمدی به تحلیل فلسفی. ترجمه سهراب علوی‌نیا. 1386. تهران: مؤسسه انتشارات نگاه.

Albrechtsen, H. 1993. Subject analysis and indexing: From automated indexing to domain analysis. The Indexer 18 (4): 219-224. Retrieved from https://www.theindexer.org/files/18-4/18-4_219.pdf (accessed Jun. 12, 2021)

Anderson, M. H., & R. K. Lemken, R. K. 2020. Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 1094428120969905. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1094428120969905 (accessed May 15, 2021).

Blair, D. C. 2003. Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. In B. Cronin (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Information Today. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aris.1440370102 (accessed Sept. 10, 2018)

Bornmann, L., K. B. Wray, & R. Haunschild. 2020. Citation concept analysis (CCA): a new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by exemplary case studies including classic books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper. Scientometrics 122 (2): 1051-1074. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-019-03326-2.pdf (accessed November. 14, 2021)

Bradshaw, S. 2003. Reference directed indexing: Redeeming relevance for subject search in citation indexes. In T. Koch & I. T. SØlvberg (Eds.), Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Proceedings of the 7^th European Conference, ECDL 2003, 499-510. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.58.4138&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed Jan. 04, 2019)

Brooks, T. A. 1995. Topical Subject Expertise and the Semantic Distanse Model of Relevance Assessment. Journal of Documentation, 51 (4): 370-387. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026956/full/html (accessed January 20, 2018)

Carlyle, A. 1989. Matching LCSH and user vocabulary in the library catalog. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 10 (2): 37-63. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J104v10n01_04 (accessed June. 6, 2021)

Case, D. O., & L. G. O’Connor. 2016. What’s the use? Measuring the frequency of studies of information outcomes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (3): 649-661. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.23411 (accessed September. 2, 2019)

Chen, Y. N., & H. R. Ke. 2013. An analysis of users' behaviour patterns in the organisation of information: A case study of CiteULike. Online information review. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-05-2012-0086/full/html (accessed July 3, 2021)

Chang, Y-W. 2013a. The Influence of Taylor’s Paper, Question-Negotiation and Information-Seeking in Libraries. Information Processing and Management, 49(5), 983-994. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Chang%2C+Y-W.+%282013a%29.+The+Influence+of+Taylor%E2%80%99s+Paper%2C+Question-Negotiation+and+Information-Seeking+in+Libraries&btnG= (accessed July 5, 2021)

_____. 2013b. A Comparison of Citation Contexts between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 96: 535-553. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-013-0956-1 (accessed July 5, 2021)

_____. 2016. Influence of Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort on Library and Information Science Research. Information Processing and Management, 52 (4): 658-669. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Influence+of+Human+Behavior+and+the+Principle+of+Least+Effort+on+Library+and+Information+Science+Research&btnG= (accessed July 5, 2021)

Chung, E., & S. K. Hastings. 2006. A Conception-Based Approach to Automatic Subject Term Assignment for Scientific Journal Articles. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 43 (1). Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/meet.1450430149 (accessed Sept. 6, 2019)

Cooper, W. S. 1969. Is inter-indexer consistency a hobgoblin? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 20 (3): 268-278. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.4630200314

Farrow, J. F. 1991. A cognitive process model of document indexing. Journal of Documentation 47 (2): 149-166. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb026875/full/html

_____. 1995. All in the Mind: Concept Analysis in Indexing. The Indexer 19 (4): 243-247. Retrieved from https://www.theindexer.org/files/19-4/19-4_243.pdf (accessed July 24, 2018)

Fidel, R. 1994. User-Centered Indexing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 45 (8): 572-576. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-4571%28199409%2945%3A8%3C572%3A%3AAID-ASI11%3E3.0.CO%3B2-X (accessed July. 27, 2018)

Fugmann, R. 1985. The five-axiom theory of indexing and information supply. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 36 (2): 116-129. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.4630360206 (accessed August. 2, 2018)

Furner, J. 2010. “Folksonomies.” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, ed. Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles. 3^rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1858-66. (accessed October. 19, 2021)

Galbiati, G. 1991. A phrase-based matching function. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 42 (1): 36-48. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-4571%28199101%2942%3A1%3C36%3A%3AAID-ASI5%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A (accessed February. 17, 2018)

Golub, K., D. Soergel, G. Buchanan, D. Tudhope, M. Lykke, & D. Hiom. 2016. A framework for evaluating automatic indexing or classification in the context of retrieval. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (1): 3-16. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.23600 accessed June. 18, 2018)

Harter, S. P., T. E. Nisonger, T. E., & A. Weng. 1993. Semantic Relationship between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 44 (9): 543-552. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-4571%28199310%2944%3A9%3C543%3A%3AAID-ASI4%3E3.0.CO%3B2-F (accessed July. 12, 2018)

Hernández-Alvarez, M., & J. M. Gomez. 2016. Survey about citation context analysis: Tasks, techniques, and resources. Natural Language Engineering, 22 (3): 327-349. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Myriam-Alvarez/publication/282109036_Survey_about_Citation_Content_Analysis_Tasks_Techniques_and_Resources/links/5de28be8a6fdcc2837fa9a91/Survey-about-Citation-Content-Analysis-Tasks-Techniques-and-Resources.pdf (accessed September 26, 2021)

HjØrland, B. 1998. Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics. Knowledge Organization 25 (1&2): 16-30. Retrieved from https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-1998-1-2-16/information-retrieval-text-composition-and-semantics-jahrgang-25-1998-heft-1-2?page=1

_____. 2002a. Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches–traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation 58 (4): 422-462. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.7788&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed August. 7, 2018)

_____. 2002b. Epistemology and Socio-Cognitive Perspective in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (4): 257-270. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/8023908/Epistemology%20and%20the%20sociocognitive%20view%20in%20IS-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1654505789&Signature=Is3Qf-yMCONHa~PW-9gM0X0BV5ESjoFmuhj6Cv9-rzRJZTKDNqdYO5cBpZCzlxrutjX3HX3Dr24R24wRU8Zvdi8q7UHxjoNfyAJKInc8rY7Wx~PtEtOeiIUVETleMPSfPKJg8bBDMixcRE~rvqiyDZwZqhE9WqvsW0UaR72ysMJ0HhPJ4TN74vlduGNTWRuNzDEeslCOJbFExkhuLhNf41C09x8dDsFVFze5h~gIV8gUsUswb3KUB5G1WTp8Me7UNwRNq7k2GoeSDzd1f0Tc9Mu3OLrzgaoF9QkG7ffX9Yb-c7R8ZFY1lGlN3lorZgabC-bcHLcYsZraZRdLRNikGw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA (accessed September. 12, 2018)

_____. 2010. The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 61 (2): 217-237. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21261 (accessed June. 10, 2018)

_____. 2019a. Indexing. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. Retrieved April 20, 2017 from https://www.isko.org/cyclo/indexing (accessed June 17, 2018)

_____. 2019b. Knowledge organization. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. Retrieved from https://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization (accessed June 17, 2018)

_____. 2019c. Subject of document. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. Retrieved from https://www.isko.org/cyclo/subject (accessed June 17, 2018)

_____, & Albrechtsen, H. 1995. Toward a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science 46: 400–425. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-4571%28199507%2946%3A6%3C400%3A%3AAID-ASI2%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Y (accessed May 5, 2018)

Kipp, M. E. 2011. User, author and professional indexing in context: An exploration of tagging practices on CiteULike. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 35 (1): 17-48. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/419604 (accessed April. 29, 2021)

Lawson, K. G. 2009. Mining social tagging data for enhanced subject access for readers and researchers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 35 (6): 574-582. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.3284&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed May. 2, 2021)

Lee, D. H., & T. Schleyer. 2012. Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing: A comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (9): 1747-1757. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/54044085/asi.2265320170802-12892-t7pgd7.pdf?1501723351=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSocial_tagging_is_no_substitute_for_cont.pdf&Expires=1640519015&Signature=c8qycOfZu89LEHWbPDZTXfMpGBQZ5H524vESjldNGDF6CQ3wBXMdhnnUQAkrNv5wjAndRSjl976fBaKuakvsu~jZKDjfVGhrs4PMj~vgYzoTp7V8toztKyHp6ZzuE~x5vhni-uLns4XQFeNBJYZzMHrOPWjXbdXx8BoOGJZ2QW2G9jhKjZowVjzWjnDEBIEGV9bZqeZ7Hcr-ArkPdriMablnjITW~vaWJJD1FzHTPiUiuanxor0Cn-XpcYIGf8Io4mCcucjmhV7gTDOu3~jC8MccIKgxGX3xZlJe5JbLY60~vbYGqpn~uAXrbzQWMgkdMmIzp5EFtm8NI7RMgm85Cg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA (accessed May. 2, 2021)

Leinnger, K. 2000. Inter-indexer consistency in PsycINFO. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 32 (1): 4-8. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096100060003200102

Liu, S., C. Chen, K. Ding, B. Wang, K. Xu, & Y. Lin. 2014. Literature retrieval based on citation context. Scientometrics 101 (2): 1293-1307. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chaomei_Chen/publication/260794659_Literature_Retrieval_Based_on_Citation_Context/links/543a94e50cf24a6ddb976206.pdf (accessed June. 5, 2021)

Lu, K., & M. E. Kipp, M. E. 2014. Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments: An experimental study on medical collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65 (3): 483-500. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.22985 (accessed May. 2, 2021)

Mai, J.-E. 1999. Deconstructing the indexing process. Advances in Librarianship, 269-298. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0065-2830(1999)0000023013/full/html (accessed July 5, 2018)

_____. 2000. The subject indexing process: An investigation of problems in knowledge representation (PhD dissertation). Retrieve from http://jenserikmai.info/Papers/2000_PhDdiss.pdf (accessed July 5, 2018)

_____. 2001. Semiotics and indexing: An analysis of the subject indexing process. Journal of Documentation 57 (5): 591-622. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000007095/full/html (accessed July 5, 2018)

_____. 2005. Analysis in indexing: Document and domain centered approaches. Information Processing and Management 41 (3): 599-611. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030645730300116X (accessed July 5, 2018)

Maron, M. E. 1977. On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 28 (1): 38-43. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.4630280107 (accessed June. 3, 2018)

O’Connor, J. 1982. Citing statements: Computer recognition and use to improve retrieval. Information Processing & Management 18 (3): 125-131. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030645738290036X (accessed May. 9, 2021)

Rafferty, P. 2018. Tagging. Knowledge organization 45 (6): 500-516. Retrieved from https://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_45_2018_6.pdf#page=60 (accessed June. 15, 2021)

Ritchie, A., S. Robertson, & S. Teufel. 2008, October. Comparing citation contexts for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 213-222). Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1458082.1458113

Ritchie, A., S. Teufel, & S. Robertson. 2006. How to find better index terms through citations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on How Can Computational Linguistics Improve Information Retrieval, Sudney, 25-32. Retrieved from https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sht25/papers/cliir06.pdf (accessed August. 4, 2021)

Rolling, L. 1981. Indexing consistency, Quality and Efficiency. Information Processing & Management 17 (2): 69-76. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0306457381900285 (accessed April 15, 2018)

Saracevic, T. 2008. Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results: A historical perspective. Library Trends 56 (4): 763-783. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/246678 (accessed April 14, 2018)

Sauperl, A. 2004. Catalogers’ Common Ground and Shared Knowledge. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 55 (1): 55-63. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.10351 (accessed March 6, 2018)

Small, H. G. 1978. Cited Documents as Concept Symbols. Social Studies of Science 8: 327-340. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030631277800800305?journalCode=sssb (accessed September 12, 2020)

Soergel, D. 1994. Indexing and retreival performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 45 (8): 589-599. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-4571%28199409%2945%3A8%3C589%3A%3AAID-ASI14%3E3.0.CO%3B2-E (accessed April 10, 2018)

Tahamtan, I., & L. Bornmann. 2019. What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics 121 (3): 1635-1684. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1906/1906.04588.pdf (accessed June. 3, 2021

Vaidya, P., & N. S. Harinarayana. 2017. The role of social tags in web resource discovery: an evaluation of user-generated keywords. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS) 63 (4): 289-297. Retrieved from http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/viewFile/14494/1105 (accessed July 11, 2021)

Van Rijsbergen, C. J. 1981. Retrieval effectiveness. Information retrieval experiment, 32-43. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.310.1980&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed August 18, 2021)

Voorbij, H. J. 1998. Keywords and subject descriptors: A comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of documentation. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000007178/full/html (accessed August 12, 2021)

Wikipedia. 2021. Discourse Community.” Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_community (accessed March 18, 2020)

Wilson, P. 1968. Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Univ of California Press. Retrieved from http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=two+kinds+of+power&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def (accessed July 5, 2021)

______, T. D. 1999. Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation 55 (3): 249-270. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=models+in+information+behaviour+research+wilson&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart (accessed November 9, 2018)

Yi, K., & L. M. Chan. 2009. Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an exploratory study. Journal of documentation. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00220410910998906/full/html (accessed June 14, 2021)

Zhu, X., P. Turney, D. Lemire, & A. Vellino. 2015. Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66 (2): 408-427. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06587.pdf (accessed October, 2020)